Hold Congress Accountable

Knowledge is power. It makes sure people understand what is happening to their country, and how they can make a difference. FreedomWorks University will give you the tools to understand economics, the workings of government, the history of the American legal system, and the most important debates facing our nation today. Enroll in FreedomWorks University today!

Search FreedomWorks

Resources

Blog

Supreme Court: No Cell Phone Searches Without a Warrant

Being an activist for liberty can occasionally be downright depressing. Sometimes it feels like it’s just one bad news after another as the government continues to grow and take away our basic freedoms.

Every now and again, there is some good news though!

The Supreme Court just ruled that police officers must obtain a warrant before searching through an arrestee’s cell phone. This unanimous decision has huge implications as 12 million Americans are arrested every single year and most carry cell phones with vast amounts of personal information.

Of course, this issue should be a no brainer. The Fourth Amendment, which clearly prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, should still apply in today’s digital age.

Up until now, however, the law has been unclear about smart phones. For better or worse, the Supreme Court has upheld that personal items, such as wallets, may be subject to search after arrest. The Obama administration has previously defended cell phone searches by saying that the devices are no different than anything else a police officer could find on a person.

Cell phones differ in both a quantitative and qualitative sense from other objects that might be carried on an arrestee's person. The term "cell phone" is itself misleading shorthand; many of these devices are in fact minicomputers that also happen to have the capacity to be used as a telephone. They could just as easily be called cameras, video players, rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders, librararies, albums, televisions, maps, or newspapers.

The justices are right. Cell phones are in a different category than wallets because the devices store so much private and sensitive information about a person. In today’s world, searching through someone’s phone can be as intrusive as searching through their home.

Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans “the privacies of life." The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple— get a warrant.

FreedomWorks applauds the Supreme Court for upholding the Fourth Amendment. This is a huge win for personal privacy. We hope that this means that the Supreme Court has decided to take civil liberties issues seriously.

Isn't it odd to be celebrating what should be a given? We are so suppressed these days that your own cell phone has become an issue?! Has anyone else felt this? We are no freer here than in Russia! I am ashamed we took so long to see it.

There's no indication that the National Security Agency's unconstitutional domestic spying efforts have thwarted an actual terrorist plot inside the United States. In January 2014, the New America Foundation released a report on the 225 individuals investigated for terrorism in which it explained that the so-called "all calls" surveillance program "had no discernible impact on preventing acts of terrorism."

Under civil asset forfeiture, the government can take someone’s property without convicting them of a crime. The law has its basis in British admiralty law and makes little sense in today’s modern world. While there are has been some discussion of reforming forfeiture at the federal level, the states are leading the charge to reform. However, more reforms are needed at the state and federal level, and can be based on the reforms already implemented in some states.

On multiple occasions over the last few years, President Barack Obama has reminded voters that he won't appear on the ballot again. Indeed, our long national nightmare will come to an end in 674 days. Presidents, of course, tend to engage on policy and politics even after they leave the White House. There's no reason to believe Obama will be any different.

The average American commits three felony crimes a day, and, more often than not, doesn't even know they've run afoul of criminal statutes. In 2009, Harvey Silverglate published a book, Three Felonies A Day, that highlighted the absurdity of over-criminalization made possible by an endless string of federal laws.

On the morning of March 4th, conservative activists from FreedomWorks and elsewhere braved the decidedly raw D.C. weather to make sure their voices were heard on King v. Burwell. As the case was argued inside the Supreme Court, activists who were outside heard from FreedomWorks’ Executive Vice President Adam Brandon, other conservative leaders, and Representatives Gohmert, Blackburn, and Heulskamp.

The practice of asset forfeiture has been a hot topic in Washington D.C. lately, whether it has been Attorney General Eric Holder announcing the federal government will no longer take part in the equitable sharing program or the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations calling into question the entire practice of civil asset forfeiture. Because of the importance and timeliness of the issue, CPAC had a panel consisting of Pat Nolan, Derek Cohen and Darpana Sheth to discuss what is wrong with asset forfeiture and what we the people can do to fix it.

In November 2013, Trevor Paine was on his through Humboldt County, Nevada on his way to California when he was stopped by a deputy from local sheriff's department for driving nine miles per hour over the speed limit on I-80. The deputy who stopped him claimed that his police dog had alerted him to something in Paine's vehicle and searched it without his consent.

Imagine this, you are moving from Michigan to California to start a new life and your dad gave you $2,500 to help you start out on your feet. While driving through Nevada you get pulled over by a deputy sheriff and he asks you how much money you have on you. You think to yourself, “that’s a strange question, but I’ve done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide,” so you tell the officer you have $2,500 from your dad. The officer then tells you he suspects your trip from Michigan to California is to acquire drugs with the $2,500 and so he seizes the cash, without arresting you, and tells you to go on your way. Welcome to the story of Matt Lee, welcome to civil asset forfeiture.

On February 6 the Federalist Society held as Civil Asset Forfeiture Update on Capitol Hill with the American Civil Liberties Union and the Institute for Justice as cosponsors. The event was held to bring more awareness to the issue which has been in the news lately with Eric Holder’s limiting order (which will leave around 86% federal civil seizure unaffected), recent legislative efforts and late night television skits. The event featured a diverse panel consisting of: Darpana Sheth (IJ), Kanya Bennett (ACLU), David Smith (Smith & Zimmerman PLLC) and Bill Piper (Drug Policy Alliance).

A bipartisan group of legislators introduced a bill to protect email privacy today in the House and Senate. FreedomWorks activists sent over 5,000 messages to Congress prior to the bill’s release, urging their representatives to cosponsor this important piece of legislation.